@m_verhaegen: "The *whole* savanna nonsense is exclusively based on a few ostrich shells
next to hominid finds (forgetting the numerous shellfish etc.next to Homo),
on riverside butchering of bovids 2.5 Ma (most likely drowned during the
trek) & on a few human hunters that with drinking water, tools etc.
sometimes endurance-run after kudus.
And all this because Dart in 1925 thought that the Taung child was found in
a dry country (now proven to be wrong).
:-D
The Savanna Fools are as ridiculous as the the geologists who constructed
land bridges between France & Florida to explain Hipparions in both places."
    @m_verhaegen: "SF: 
<quote>
My little little boy: AAT is about seacoasts.
Why don't these imbeciles inform a little bit??"
    @m_verhaegen: "SF for some obscure reason keeps repeating this.
I guess he likes it.
:-)
<quote>
Thanks, my boy.
Afraid of posting the rest??
Google "aquarboreal":
Were australopiths wetland waders?
Our extensive survey of the literature [17] suggests that most hominids
might have dwelt in �wet� rather than �dry� habitats, and this has been
confirmed by recent discoveries [14,18,19]. Palaeo-ecological
reconstructions are notoriously difficult and our view has been contested
by supporters of traditional savannah interpretations [1�3,17,19], yet it
appears clear that all australopiths lived near trees, with early species
generally living in wet and well-wooded environments, and later species
living more often in more open wetlands (Table 2).
Our interpretation is corroborated by:
(1) comparisons of postcranial skeleton;
(2) tooth enamel microwear;
(3) strontium:calcium ratios;
(4) isotopic evidence.
Postcranial skeletal comparisons
Fossilized footprints and skeletal remains suggest that australopiths had a
mix of bipedal, tree-climbing and probably [20] knuckle-walking features.
These would have been ideal for wetlands: bipedalism in waist-deep water,
knuckle-walking in knee-deep water, and well-developed overhead arm mobility
for grasping fruits and climbing in the waterside vegetation, as seen to
varying degrees in modern pygmy chimpanzees and lowland gorillas in flooded
rainforests or forest swamps [15]. Australopith short-legged bipedalism was
different from human bipedalism [21], probably including a somewhat
forward-leaning trunk posture [22], and would have been suitable for
aquarborealism. The Australopithecus africanus StW-573 foot from
Sterkfontein, South Africa, for instance, �had both bipedal and climbing
adaptations. This skeleton�s foot morphology is consistent with the
bipedal Laetoli footprints, which are not those of fully human feet, but
which have very clear ape-like morphology� [23]. Tree-climbing features
(which are less obvious in the robust australopiths) include apelike
upward-directed shoulder joints and curved finger and toe phalanges.
Tooth microwear 
Tooth microwear studies indicate that Australopithecus afarensis molar
enamel had a glossy polished surface that is typical of the molars of
capybaras Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris and mountain-beavers Aplodontia rufa
[24]. Both these semi-aquatic rodents feed mainly on riverside herbs,
grasses and the bark of young trees. The microwear of Australopithecus
boisei displays more pits, wide parallel striations and deep-recessed
occlusal dentine features than that of A. afarensis [25,26], resembling the
microwear of beavers Castor fiber, which feed on riverine herbs, roots of
water-lilies, bark and woody plants. Apparently, an early australopith diet
of fruits (larger front teeth) and swamp herbs (polishing) was supplemented
with woody plants in the robust australopiths (more wear). Walker�s
suggestion that A.boisei were bulk-eaters of �small, hard fruits with
casings, pulp, seeds and all� [27] could explain the deep-recessed
dentine, but not the heavily polished enamel that is typical of marsh-plant
feeders [24,25]. 
Strontium:calcium ratios and isotopic evidence
The microwear data are consistent with those from two studies on South
African australopiths [28,29]. Sillen provides three possibilities for low
strontium:calcium ratios in Australopithecus robustus: partial carnivory;
eating leaves and shoots of forbs and woody plants; and eating food derived
from well-drained streamside soils [28]. Sponheimer and Lee-Thorp state that
A.africanus �ate not only fruits and leaves but also large quantities of
carbon-13-enriched foods such as grasses and sedges or animals that ate
these plants, or both� [29]. However, regular consumption of savannah
grasses is incompatible with the polished, rounded microwear [24,29] and
predominant meat eating is unlikely in view of the blunt molars [27]. More
probable is a diet of sedges and other marshland plants supplemented with
fruits and animals (e.g. tools attributed to A.robustus now suggest termite-
eating [30]). 
Independent lines of evidence thus suggest that different australopith
species regularly waded for shallow-water plants, possibly like lowland
gorillas do today [15], only much more frequently. Papyrus or reed
sedges were abundant in australopith environments (Table 2) and are part of
the diet of extant hominids. Gorillas eat bamboo shoots and stalks, as well
as swamp herbs and sedges (Table 1); all hominids eat cane; bipedally wading
chimpanzees and humans collect water lilies; and rice growing in shallow
water, and other cereals are staple foods for humans."
    @m_verhaegen: "<url>
 <url>
The SFs have not 1 single little argument against AAT:
Op 11-04-2008 02:56, in artikel
<email_address>, Lee Olsen
<email_address> schreef:
<quote>"
    @m_verhaegen: "Op 606-217-4071:03, in artikel <email_address>, Rich
Travsky <email_address> schreef:
<quote>
Then why does this SF repeats the question??
SFs are stupid stupid stupid."
    @m_verhaegen: "<quote>
Yes, my little boy, very curious, and an intelligent person would (IOW, not
you) like to know how that might be: the answer is simple: because we had
been adapted to the waterside:
Collection of waterside foods (fruits & nuts, turtle & bird eggs,
shell/crayfish, water(side)plants, drowned herbivores, stranded whales etc.)
explains unique Homo traits (not seen in apes & australopiths) better than
dwelling in forests or dry plains: huge brain, slow-diving skills, breath
control, vocality, small mouth+chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer
airway, projecting nose, poor sense of smell, handiness & tool use, late
puberty, long legs, alined body, poor climbing, flat feet, fur loss,
fatness, profuse sweating, high needs of water, sodium, iodine,
poly-unsat.fatty acids (DHA), etc.  All these features are typically seen in
different combinations in waterside & (semi)aquatic animals, but are
strikingly absent in savanna dwelling mammals.
Homo & Pan separated ~6�4 Ma. Homo populations dispersed along
lakes/shores/rivers in savannas & elsewhere, eg, crossed 18 km sea to reach
Flores 0.8 Ma.
Homo tools/fossils 2.5�0.1 Ma are found near Rift valley lakes & even (sea
level fluctuations hindered fossilisation) Indian Ocean & African coasts,
often amid seashells (Mojokerto, Dungo V Baia Farta, Terra Amata, Table Bay,
Eritrea etc.).
<url>
IOW, if Savanna Fantasists who believe that fossils & tools of extinct human
relatives have been discovered in ancient savanna milieus, think that the
waterside theory is wrong, they have to prove that there were no rivers,
lakes or coasts in these milieus.
<url>"
    @m_verhaegen: "SF:
<quote>
My little boy, just prove us that giraffes had (semi)aquatic ancestors.  Or
monkeys.  Or lions.  Or mice.  Or bats.  Or..."
    @m_verhaegen: "<quote>
SF: 
:-D
IOW, our little loon is too stupid to give an answer.
This confirms that
SFs are stupid stupid stuipd."
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 7, "forum_name": "sci.anthropology.paleo.20150312.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-sci.anthropology.parquet'}